<p>The Karnataka High Court has asked the BBMP to be watchful so that a private party does not use it as a tool to settle scores.</p>.<p>Justice Suraj Govindaraj made this statement while setting aside action initiated against a property owner based on the complaint by his brother.</p>.<p>Petitioner N Ramamurthy, a resident of Kadugondanahalli, had some dispute with his younger brother, N Radhakrishna. During the widening of Tannery Road, the petitioner had given up a portion of his property. After demolition of the acquired part, he plastered the remaining portion and installed a rolling shutter.</p>.<p>Meanwhile, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 321(1) of the KMC Act based on a complaint by Radhakrishna, contending that he had altered the premises without obtaining a plan sanction.</p>.<p>The petitioner challenged the May 18, 2010 confirmatory order passed by the executive engineer and also the February 20, 2016 order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Authority upholding the confirmatory order.</p>.<p>Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that the BBMP could not have exercised powers under Section 321 of the KMC Act, more so, on the basis of a complaint filed by the brother of the petitioner with whom there are certain disputes pending.</p>.<p>“The said complaint is only to put the state machinery in action to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and respondent no 4 (Radhakrishna). It would be well advised for the corporation (BBMP) to be careful in these situations and take necessary action in accordance with law and not to be used as a tool by a private party to settle private scores. Though this court could have imposed cost on respondent no 4, it refrains from doing so.”</p>.<p>The bench also said that mere repair work, which does not affect the position or dimension of the building, cannot be said to be an alteration.</p>.<p>“Therefore, in my considered opinion, the demolition work which was carried out for the purpose of making the building habitable and usable cannot be said to be an alteration, which would come within the purview of Section 321 of the Act but would come under the proviso to Section 320 of the Act.”</p>
<p>The Karnataka High Court has asked the BBMP to be watchful so that a private party does not use it as a tool to settle scores.</p>.<p>Justice Suraj Govindaraj made this statement while setting aside action initiated against a property owner based on the complaint by his brother.</p>.<p>Petitioner N Ramamurthy, a resident of Kadugondanahalli, had some dispute with his younger brother, N Radhakrishna. During the widening of Tannery Road, the petitioner had given up a portion of his property. After demolition of the acquired part, he plastered the remaining portion and installed a rolling shutter.</p>.<p>Meanwhile, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 321(1) of the KMC Act based on a complaint by Radhakrishna, contending that he had altered the premises without obtaining a plan sanction.</p>.<p>The petitioner challenged the May 18, 2010 confirmatory order passed by the executive engineer and also the February 20, 2016 order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Authority upholding the confirmatory order.</p>.<p>Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that the BBMP could not have exercised powers under Section 321 of the KMC Act, more so, on the basis of a complaint filed by the brother of the petitioner with whom there are certain disputes pending.</p>.<p>“The said complaint is only to put the state machinery in action to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and respondent no 4 (Radhakrishna). It would be well advised for the corporation (BBMP) to be careful in these situations and take necessary action in accordance with law and not to be used as a tool by a private party to settle private scores. Though this court could have imposed cost on respondent no 4, it refrains from doing so.”</p>.<p>The bench also said that mere repair work, which does not affect the position or dimension of the building, cannot be said to be an alteration.</p>.<p>“Therefore, in my considered opinion, the demolition work which was carried out for the purpose of making the building habitable and usable cannot be said to be an alteration, which would come within the purview of Section 321 of the Act but would come under the proviso to Section 320 of the Act.”</p>